Before the Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of ) ) Adaptrum, Inc. Waiver ) ET Docket No. 14-187 Request ) To: Office of Engineering and Technology

REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

The National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”)1 submits these reply comments

with respect to the August 10, 2014 waiver request filed by Adaptrum, Inc.2 While NAB

recognizes that the Commission’s waiver process is an important means for

experimentation, the circumstances of this particular waiver should give the Commission

serious pause. Beyond the fact that the Commission is in the midst of a rulemaking

covering the exact subject of the waiver request, Adaptrum appears to have flaunted the

Commission’s related rules to date, and thus its request should not be granted. At the

very least, should the Commission grant the request, the Commission should subject

Adaptrum to a few critical technical conditions.

1 The National Association of Broadcasters is a nonprofit trade association that advocates on behalf of free local radio and television stations and broadcast networks before Congress, the Federal Communications Commission and other federal agencies, and the courts. 2 Office of Engineering and Technology Declares the Adaptrum, Inc. Request for Waiver of Sections 15.709(b)(2) of the Rules to Be a “Permit-But-Disclose” Proceeding for Ex Parte Purposes and Requests Comment, Public Notice, ET Docket No. 14-187, DA 14-1530 (Oct. 23, 2014).

2

DISCUSSION

Adaptrum requests a waiver to allow operation of fixed white spaces devices with

antenna heights above ground exceeding those provided in the Commission’s rules.3

Adaptrum seeks to mount fixed TV White Spaces (“TVWS”) devices on towers in

Northeast Maine near the Canadian border in order “to demonstrate the use of TV band

devices in a rural area where there are few alternatives for broadband.”4

As a general matter, NAB has supported innovative unlicensed technologies,

provided they can operate without causing harm to licensed services. Indeed, NAB has

provided a forum for Adaptrum at NAB’s annual show in Las Vegas so that Adaptrum can

showcase its products.

NAB also understands the important role waivers can play in innovation. In this

instance, however, Adaptrum has taken a number of steps that should give the

Commission pause before rewarding the company with additional flexibility and trust.

It is well understood that parties are expected to request and obtain rule waivers

authorizing their deployments before actually deploying. Yet, in this case, Adaptrum

appears to have already installed equipment pursuant to a waiver the Commission has

yet to grant. Pictures available on Adaptrum’s website confirm that Adaptrum has

installed a TVWS device on at least one large tower,5 that the device has been

3 Letter from Haiyun Tang, Adaptrum, to Julius Knapp, FCC, ET Docket No. 14-187 (Aug. 10, 2014) (“Adaptrum Waiver Request”). 4 Id. at 1. 5 Attachment 1; see also http://www.adaptrum.com/acrs2launch/Launch_DeployPics_Maine.htm.

3

operational at least long enough to perform testing,6 and that customer premises

equipment was installed miles away from the tower – presumably for further testing.7 In

short, Adaptrum appears to have granted its own waiver prior to seeking and receiving

Commission approval and has commenced limited operations.

In addition, waiver or no, current TVWS rules require Adaptrum to register devices

in the TVWS database. NAB can find no such registration for Adaptrum’s devices in

Maine. This is troubling, to say the least. The database approach to preventing

interference depends entirely on unlicensed users properly registering devices. When

devices are not registered, as appears to be the case here, there is no ready way to

determine the source of harmful interference or ask the responsible party to turn down its

operations. NAB has also been unable to find any active experimental licenses for

Adaptrum or Axiom using Adaptrum devices in Maine.8 Whatever operation Adaptrum is

conducting in Maine, it is doing so without authorization, and apparently in violation of

current FCC rules. The Commission should be very hesitant to grant a waiver of rules

designed to prevent harmful interference to a party that cannot demonstrate that it

consistently follows such rules. After all, unlicensed operation does not mean operation

without responsibility. Quite the contrary – unlicensed TVWS users are required to follow

the Commission’s rules to mitigate potential harmful interference.

6 Attachment 2; see also http://www.adaptrum.com/acrs2launch/Launch_DeployPics_Maine.htm. 7 Attachment 3; see also http://www.adaptrum.com/acrs2launch/Launch_DeployPics_Maine.htm. 8 Axiom previously had an experimental license for testing in Maine using Carlson devices, under call sign WG9XYZ, File No. 0857-EX-ST-2013. That experimental authorization expired on March 7, 2014.

4

It is also relevant that the Commission currently has an open proceeding

examining potential modifications to the rules for unlicensed operation, and whether

these modifications can be made without causing harmful interference to licensed

operations.9 Indeed, the Commission expressly seeks comment on the question of

whether limits on antenna height above ground can safely be raised in rural areas. While

one commenter claims the FCC has already recognized the benefits of operation at

increased heights, in fact, the FCC is actively seeking input on this very issue, and has

yet to reach any conclusion.10 NAB respectfully submits this issue is more properly

addressed in a rulemaking proceeding, based on thorough technical analysis.

Despite Adaptrum’s transgressions, if the Commission nevertheless elects to grant

Adaptrum’s request, it should at a minimum require Adaptrum to operate with two vacant

television channels on either side of the channel on which these devices operate – that

is, on the central channel of five vacant, contiguous channels. While operation at higher

antenna heights permits greater communication range, such extended range also means

that the interference potential from these devices will extend to a further distance, thereby

significantly increasing the potential for harm. Given the large number of vacant channels

in this part of Maine, this condition will not preclude operation. It will, however, help to

ensure that Adaptrum’s experiment does not disrupt reception for television viewers, as

9 Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Band, 600 MHz Guard Bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37, and Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules for Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the Repurposed 600 MHz Band and 600 MHz Duplex Gap; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 14-165, GN Docket No. 12-268, FCC 14-144, ¶ 44 (rel. Sept. 30, 2014). 10 Comments of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, 2, ET Docket No. 14-187 (filed Nov. 24, 2014).

5

Adaptrum has not shown any independent inclination to follow procedures intended to

prevent such disruption.

In sum, Adaptrum’s actions and the Commission’s current rulemaking directly on

point make Adaptrum’s request far less compelling than the average waiver request.

Even if the Commission overlooks Adaptrum’s relevant actions, the Commission should

take the necessary steps to ensure that Adaptrum does not harm broadcasters in the

market in any way.

Respectfully submitted,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS 1771 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429-5430

_________________________ Rick Kaplan Jerianne Timmerman Patrick McFadden Victor Tawil Bruce Franca Robert Weller December 9, 2014